Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37451863›Full record

ArticleThorax2023

Pulmonary telerehabilitation vs. conventional pulmonary rehabilitation - a secondary responder analysis.

Henrik Hansen, Andre Torre, Thomas Kallemose, Charlotte Suppli Ulrik, Nina Skavlan Godtfredsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thorax, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Henrik HansenRespiratory Research Unit, Hvidovre Hospital Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hvidovre, Denmark henrik.hansen.09@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-5464-4088
Andre TorreClinical research center, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Thomas KallemoseClinical research center, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Charlotte Suppli UlrikRespiratory Research Unit and Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Nina Skavlan GodtfredsenInstitute for Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Home-based pulmonary telerehabilitation (PTR) has been proposed to be equivalent to supervised outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) but available randomised trials have failed to reach the minimal important changes (MIC). The purpose of this study was to analyse the proportion of MIC responders and non-responders on short-term (10 weeks from baseline) and long-term (62 weeks from baseline) in total and between groups in 134 patients with COPD randomised (1:1) to either home-based PTR or traditional hospital-based outpatient PR. Difference between PTR and PR on 6MWD response proportion could not be shown at 10 (OR=0.72, CI=0.34 to 1.51, p=0.381) or 62 weeks (OR=1.12, CI=0.40 to 3.14, p=0.834). While the evidence and knowledge of PTR accumulate, outpatient supervised PR for now remains the standard of care, with home-based PTR as a strong secondary option for those unable to attend out-patient programmes.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveTelerehabilitationHospitalsHumansLungQuality of LifeExercisePulmonary Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37451863
PMCPMC10511950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.